The Gazette 1964/67

defendant who said he had included the five guineas because he thought he would have to pay that fee to the assignor's solicitor, but had not been asked for payment. He pleaded not guilty and denied attempting to act as a solicitor, but the Magistrate, Mr. Edward Robey, held that the case was so plain that it was beyond any argu ment at all and fined him £10-0-0 with ten guineas costs, and giving two months to pay, with an alternative of two months in prison. BOOK REVIEW DICKERSON (R.W.V.) — Accountants and the Law of Negligence. Toronto, Canadian Institute of Char tered Accountants, 1966. (Royal 8vo, pp. XV, 648). Price not stated. Mr. R. W. Dickerson, of the Faculty of Law in the University of British Columbia at Vancouver, has writ University of British Columbia at Vancouver, has written an interesting, comprehansive and instructive boom on the intricate legal problems which accountants meet on such problems as: duty of care, standard of care, measure of damages, contributory negligence, duty to third parties, etc. The book is preceeded by a table of cases, which is unfortunately incomplete, as it only refers to the pages in the tedt, and does not give the customary references; however, generally speaking, the cases are dealt with very fully in the text, and the most important extracts from the leading judgments have been inserted therein. It is evident that the law of negligence as applied to accountants has evolved largely out of cases in which accountants have been engaged as auditors, and obviously the auditor's duty to his client must be found in the terms of the contract, which should be preferably in writing. However, under such statutes as the Companies Acts 1963, the duties of auditors are clearly set out, and based on the statute. As Lord Denning has so clearly stated, in the Fomento Case (1958) "An auditor is not to be confined to the mechanics of checking vouchers and making arithmetical computations. His vital task is to see that errors are not made, be they errors of computation, or errors of omission, or downright untruths." The auditor must therefore come to his task with an inquiring mind! The legal circumstances in which an auditor will have to disclaim responsibility for certain figures in the financial statements is fully explored. The text relating to the intricate subject covers 100 pages, while there are no less than 500 pages of cases reproduced in Appendix A while an additional 35 pages covers the official statements and opinions of counsel in Appendix B. The cases covered are tested alphabetically, and are thus easily traceable; they cover decisions from South Africa, England, India, Canada, and Australia. The only Irish cases listed are: (1) Cork Mutual Benefit Society v. Atkins' Churnside & Co. (1911) in which Wright J. held that the defendant auditors had acted with all reasonable care and skill; (2) Irish Woollen Co. v. Tyson (1900) in which the Irish Court of Appeal held that the auditor had been negligent in not detecting frauds, and (3) Ross & Co. v. Wright, Fitzsimons and Mayes (1896) in which Lord Justice Fitzgibbon held that the auditors were negligent in failing to detect errors and falsifications, and had to pay £50 damages. The 26

Supreme Court of Western Australia date Jan uary 9, 1963, and held that in certain circum stances the owner of a tree which had been set on fire by lightning was liable for the damage caused by the consequential spread of fire. It was considered that the case was not one where a person had brought a source of danger on his land, nor one where an occupier had so used his property as to cause a danger to his neighbour. It was one where an occupier faced with a hazard accidentally arising on his land, failed to act with reasonable prudence so as to remove the hazard. The issue was therefore whether in such a case the occupier was guilty of legal negligence, which involved the issue whether he was under a duty of care, and if so, what was the scope of that duty with regard to his neighbours, as to hazards arising on his land. (Allan William Goldman v. Rupert William Edeson Hargrave and Another, Times, 14/6/66). UNQUALIFIED PERSONS ACTING The Leiscester Mercury for May 6th, 1965, reports a case at Market County Court heard before His Honour Judge D. H. Robson on May 5th. British Colonial Furnisher, Ltd., of Nottingham Street, sued for a debt owing to the company and were represented by Mr. Frederick Overtoil, an accountant. The learned Judge told Mr. Overton that an official company should be represented by a solicitor and, receiving no reply, said he would overlook it on this occasion, adding that there were three local solicitors, each able to represent the company, and yet an accountant was sent all the way from Nottingham to Market. Judgment was given for the company, payable at ten shillings a month, and the Judge re marked: "It will take a month or two to pay your fare down here no doubt it will and rightly so." We should have thought this rule was well understood and we see no reason why the rule should be broken. On May 26th, 1965 the Surrey Comet reported that Robert E. Burns, of Esker, appeared at Mar- borough Street, Magistrates Court on May 24th, 1965 in answer to a summons issued at the in stance of the Law Society for preparing, as un qualified person, the assignment of a flat at Wey- bridge. The defendant was a senior clerk with a co-operative society, and the assignee of the flat had paid him sums of £81-18-0 and £128-19-0, the bill including an item of five guineas for "assignment of lease." Evidence was given by the assignor's solicitor who described a telephone conversation and a discussion with the